Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2020 6:35:34 GMT
Even in seeing that, the 'wrestle' between viewpoints can still continue. Wrestling, so long as you don't become lost to it, can be kinda fun though, right? That's not my reality. When we try to change the view point of others, we are going against the flow or not understanding the universal unfolding from the higher level. But it's okay if it is sort of enjoyment for you. I write here because I enjoy sometimes. Now there is no intent arises in me to change others. What if you're wrong What if the universal flow is to change the intent of some others? How do you know which one is the correct flow? To change or not to change the intent of others. Do you look for a sign from God to tell you which path to take?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2020 13:28:59 GMT
That's not my reality. When we try to change the view point of others, we are going against the flow or not understanding the universal unfolding from the higher level. But it's okay if it is sort of enjoyment for you. I write here because I enjoy sometimes. Now there is no intent arises in me to change others. Even IF your intent was to try to offer information to someone for the purpose of perhaps changing their mind, that does not necessarily indicate 'resistance' to them having a different opinion than you. I think you are conflating all intent towards change of conditions with resistance to what is, and that's not always the case. One can be in fundamental acceptance/allowance of current conditions and still act towards change. If you start to believe something to be true, you would be projecting the person with opposite idea, he appears as a result of your new belief. You are the one who is actually projecting him for purpose of argument. As a matter of fact, you are not trying to argue with him, you are arguing with yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2020 13:35:18 GMT
That's not my reality. When we try to change the view point of others, we are going against the flow or not understanding the universal unfolding from the higher level. But it's okay if it is sort of enjoyment for you. I write here because I enjoy sometimes. Now there is no intent arises in me to change others. What if you're wrong What if the universal flow is to change the intent of some others? How do you know which one is the correct flow? To change or not to change the intent of others. Do you look for a sign from God to tell you which path to take? You are actually creating that situation in which you would find others are having an opposing view, Said that, this entire situation is slipping out of Infinite's lap for you to explore your boundary.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 15, 2020 15:10:29 GMT
Even IF your intent was to try to offer information to someone for the purpose of perhaps changing their mind, that does not necessarily indicate 'resistance' to them having a different opinion than you. I think you are conflating all intent towards change of conditions with resistance to what is, and that's not always the case. One can be in fundamental acceptance/allowance of current conditions and still act towards change. If you start to believe something to be true, you would be projecting the person with opposite idea, he appears as a result of your new belief. You are the one who is actually projecting him for purpose of argument. As a matter of fact, you are not trying to argue with him, you are arguing with yourself. As I see it, it's not beliefs that create opposites, but rather the interest in them. The interest initiates a dualistic exploration in order to fully understand what's being explored and defined by it's opposite. This focus opens the door to experiencing the opposite of what you are interested in.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 15, 2020 17:49:22 GMT
Even IF your intent was to try to offer information to someone for the purpose of perhaps changing their mind, that does not necessarily indicate 'resistance' to them having a different opinion than you. I think you are conflating all intent towards change of conditions with resistance to what is, and that's not always the case. One can be in fundamental acceptance/allowance of current conditions and still act towards change. If you start to believe something to be true, you would be projecting the person with opposite idea, he appears as a result of your new belief. You are the one who is actually projecting him for purpose of argument. As a matter of fact, you are not trying to argue with him, you are arguing with yourself. To remove the seeming, over-personalization of this, I'd say instead: Arguing between appearing characters is what's appearing/arising to/within that which abides. And there is no separation between that which appears and that which abides. Argument/discussion appears arises within the dream...as do the characters who argue. It's important to see this so you don't fall into the trap of thinking that the person creates/causes manifestations within the dream.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 15, 2020 17:50:11 GMT
If you start to believe something to be true, you would be projecting the person with opposite idea, he appears as a result of your new belief. You are the one who is actually projecting him for purpose of argument. As a matter of fact, you are not trying to argue with him, you are arguing with yourself. As I see it, it's not beliefs that create opposites, but rather the interest in them. The interest initiates a dualistic exploration in order to fully understand what's being explored and defined by it's opposite. This focus opens the door to experiencing the opposite of what you are interested in. well put.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 4:24:42 GMT
If you start to believe something to be true, you would be projecting the person with opposite idea, he appears as a result of your new belief. You are the one who is actually projecting him for purpose of argument. As a matter of fact, you are not trying to argue with him, you are arguing with yourself. As I see it, it's not beliefs that create opposites, but rather the interest in them. The interest initiates a dualistic exploration in order to fully understand what's being explored and defined by it's opposite. This focus opens the door to experiencing the opposite of what you are interested in. So you are saying an interest to have any experience triggers the dualistic experience? Why dualistic exploration is necessary to understand what's being explored?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 6:17:05 GMT
If you start to believe something to be true, you would be projecting the person with opposite idea, he appears as a result of your new belief. You are the one who is actually projecting him for purpose of argument. As a matter of fact, you are not trying to argue with him, you are arguing with yourself. To remove the seeming, over-personalization of this, I'd say instead: Arguing between appearing characters is what's appearing/arising to/within that which abides. And there is no separation between that which appears and that which abides. Argument/discussion appears arises within the dream...as do the characters who argue. It's important to see this so you don't fall into the trap of thinking that the person creates/causes manifestations within the dream. If you been believing yourself to be a monkey, and one day suddenly you realized yourself to be a human, then you would not create certain thing in your life, or it wouldn't arise in your dream.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 16, 2020 16:53:51 GMT
As I see it, it's not beliefs that create opposites, but rather the interest in them. The interest initiates a dualistic exploration in order to fully understand what's being explored and defined by it's opposite. This focus opens the door to experiencing the opposite of what you are interested in. So you are saying an interest to have any experience triggers the dualistic experience? Why dualistic exploration is necessary to understand what's being explored?Because it's not only language that mutually defines, but also meaning and feeling. This means it's not only necessary to focus on happiness in order to know what makes you happy, but also on your experience of unhappiness, to understand what makes you unhappy. To say 'It makes me happy to be free' also involves perhaps a more subtle contemplation of how feeling imprisoned makes you unhappy. This focus is creative on a feeling level. It's actually quite likely that an exploration of happiness will result in showing yourself all the ways you make yourself unhappy in the form of actual experiences. However, just believing you are happy is a declaration of your experienced state, and doesn't require a dualistic exploration as there's no problem to solve.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 17, 2020 4:29:23 GMT
To remove the seeming, over-personalization of this, I'd say instead: Arguing between appearing characters is what's appearing/arising to/within that which abides. And there is no separation between that which appears and that which abides. Argument/discussion appears arises within the dream...as do the characters who argue. It's important to see this so you don't fall into the trap of thinking that the person creates/causes manifestations within the dream. If you been believing yourself to be a monkey, and one day suddenly you realized yourself to be a human, then you would not create certain thing in your life, or it wouldn't arise in your dream. Yes, realization does have a way of impacting experience and thus, thoughts/ideas/beliefs.
|
|